Centerfield

Where are you reading that? All I ever see is the opposite.

Not that I don't think there are those in the fugnutty brigades of both sides happy to claim it one way or another, but the only "endorsement" I ever saw out of AQ was the non-endorsement of 2004, where an AQ/OBL spokesperson urged Americans to vote for Bush because "he is the most foolish."

Was the war really the big issue of this election? More than pork or corruption or immigration or entitlements? I know the MSM keeps saying this was a referendum on Iraq but is it really? It seems to more likely that this was a referendum on the GOP alienating its base at every turn coupled with America being tired of the pork and corruption.

Expert political strategerist I'm not though.

If a policy is good for our country we should adopt it.
If a policy is not good for our country, we ought not to adopt it.

Therefore:
If a policy is good for our country but Al-quaeda supports the policy, we should still adopt it, even if it pleases Al-quaeda.

If a policy is NOT good for our country but Al-quaeda opposes the policy, we should still NOT adopt it in order to displease Al-Quaeda.

But the fact that al Qaeda believes that a particular policy will help them should at least inspire us to delve into the specifics of that policy to make sure their claim is wrong, shouldn't it?

Today Al Qaeda declared its intention to literally destroy the White House. Or so they swear by God. They also declared more than 12.000 AL Qaeda fighters are now armed and fighting IN IRAQ. They have expanded their bases in Lebanon and of course, we know of their expanded operations in Africa, the Far East, the Middle East, South America, Europe and probably our own country. So why declare this today? Was Bush the reson for our not getting hit? If so why? Better security or less effort on Al Qaeda's part?

The internet news I have seen suggest Al Qaeda did indeed prefer Bush in 2004 because they had determined him vital for anti-Americanism, recruitment AND for the eventual consequences of failed Bush strategy in Iraq, the Gulf, Lebanon, Africa, South America, the Far East. I think it is a myth that Al Qaeda thinks the Democrats would run away in fear despite the overblown rant of Kosworld for four years and pandering Democratic representatives out to get their vote. Sheehan beware! Maybe Al Qaeda imagined what eventually brought Bush down on Tuesday as well as the mess in Iraq and angry international opinion will work quite well. They think they have influenced these events without pissing off the opposition party in 2002-2006 by not hitting us before 2006. There is no proof od this however. We have all seen the partisan attacks on Bush for years that resonated with those of our foes. Pretty smart. Hitting us before 2004 would have questioned Bush's ability to protect and changed our course towards more resolve. That is questionable logic. Some experts suggest our intelligent services think such Al Qaeda strategy was likely as well. How, I don’t know. This Al Qaeda plan also put Democrats at odds with Israel and using force, something not lost on Rove. Again, how anyone can prove this is beyond my speculations.

Now that Democrats are in charge of Congress, today's Al Qaeda comments reflect a new stage in the battle. The flow of weapons into Lebanon goes forward. North Korea is still working to make a bomb that works and can fit its missiles and Iran's cruise missiles and drones. Iran is racing to build production capacity and new technology as well as nuclear weapons. The Mullahs know this takes time and we have witnessed without much fanfare a stalling tactic for years moving towards de facto possession. Again, I cannot believe Webb or Biden do not know the strategy of both our adversaries and their partners in crime. The question is if the Party willing to go anywhere near Democratic Internationalism or pre-emption.

If Al Queda strikes during the next two years, both the Democrats and Republicans will be strange bedfellows in a retaliatory bed. The real problem is what to do now about the terrorist network and supporting regimes before they acquire wmd or wmc. What do we do about a weak commitment from the free world to head disaster off? How is our military? Iraq complicates this, but today's announcement by Al Qaeda lends support to anti-AL Queda McCain (who seems to be picking up Bush’s course plus MORE troops) who calls for taking Sadr out. Thus Newt appears as some newt counterweight? Romney, McCain, Newt and Giuliani in a face off for 2008?.

I have to say that many Democratic voters believe they were voting to end the war and give up on military force as any kind of option. The truth is a clever tactic to win with centrists while presenting no plan that would tip off the more Liberal. You can see the hurt when Dean told Blitzer, “we will not cut and run”. Now Democrats can deliver on more socially liberal agendas while retaking the security lead they so bitterly lost. Or they can screw up.

They deserve some respect if they do a better job. If they slip into partisanship (which the Right Winger will try to incite as well as the betrayed Left Wingers), they are out in 2008. This does seem like a simple gambit. If we are attacked, a united front. If nothing happens we need to deal with Iraq while fashioning a plan for Iran (who said Tuesday was THEIR victory) and the rest of the growing threats. Israel may have to respond before we have this debate and the world's triggers are on hairs. Once our adversaries see us stay the course of centrist action (Hell, what is that?) and not execute Bush, they will go to plan B.

GO Dean! GO Biden! Go Stop-the-nukes Kerry! .....get Al Qaeda starting with OBL hhhmmmmmmm this should be an interest two years!

So much for a TV guide review of this week’s class of Speculation 101

Another scatter shot -only because this week I had some time on my hands………..

Pat,
A policy that is good for our country should already include a review of the specifics of any credible claims by Al Qaeda that such a policy would actually be good for THEM. Why would they publically make such a claim? Kind of like a "bring em on"? Really help us make better policy?

And then they can SAY they are pleased when they are really not. I would put most of my faith in Brian's general proposition, unless intelligence has really discovered Al Qaeda'a internal documents or we "extract" it from our AL Qaeda detainees........just kidding on the last remark.

I was trying to be too clever. What I actually saw was people saying al'Qaeda would interpret a Democratic victory as weakness, and other people saying only Republicans could secure victory.

Both of those claims would amount to ending democracy with Republicans conveniently in office indefinitely - e.g., it would amount to Al'Qaeda telling us to vote Republican.

Of course, that wasn't atall clear. Yet another incidence of being far less clever than I think I am.....

Gotcha, Jon. It's that lack of sardonic smileys that gets me every time, especially when I'm tired.

SD, the war came in #4 in the exit polling. Corruption and do-nothing and health care ranked higher. The voters had the picture of power entrenchment prioritized over any substantive action to address real concerns, and enough of them switched to send a message.

Tully,

Well, there was another instance of OBL appearing on NBC to say "In a few days, you Americans shall vote, either for the tyrant Bush, or the gigolo Kerry..."

Of course, that was on Saturday Night Live...;-)

Tully.
I guess Rummy doesn't visit Germany anytime soon. Iraq played the role of glue between divergent views in what is a wide spectrum of opposition.. You know the mantra has become "we didn't send enough troops". Do you see Rice rising from the ashes with Gates entering the picture? And Harold Ford Jr. becoming the replacement for Dean. Where does Dean go? Home?

Jon.
this has a decent run down. This election does break the dynamic you stated. Now the playing field is level and we shall see what both sides do. I keep hearing however, from some Democrats, that getting out of Iraq fast will help us deal with Iran. How? McGovern is working out a plan for us to be out by June?

If Al Qaeda does create a radical regime in Iraq, how will Murtha respond? B-52s? I think this puts Biden on the hot seat. I have to say McCain has balls pushing for more troops now. It might not make him a more moderate candidate, but various threats to his run have been booted. Events may bring back a more hard-line position and the need for a commander.

Wanna bet the generals take a page out of Cobra ll when they appear before Congress? I suspect this week is just the beginning of a wild ride. I won't shed tears when Cheney goes on the hot seat.

What I see on Al-Jazeera is mostly Hamas types saying a Dem win is a sign of weakness. Logical enough since most of the pull out policies come from the Dem side.

Irregaurdless, that should make no, -zero, difference in how we should vote. We can vote on who we think would best defeat our enemies, but what AQ has to say about it shouldn't affect our votes. And I'd I bet almost everyone feels the same way.

Let's see. If AQ wants us to vote Dem and they know we will do the opposite then they really want us to vote Repub. But they know we are smart enough to know that they know that.... Nah. We will make up our own minds about how to best kick your ass thank you very much.

One analysis I heard on NPR suggested war issues were #1, though possibly in pre-election polls rather than analyses of who split from exit polls.

But it doesn't matter so much if it was the #1 issue, my point on who makes decisions on war direction remains true.

The fact that a certain threshold of resolve must be demonstrated for a politician to gain power in a democracy is something non-democracies never seem to understand. New leadership is always tested. Remember, China, Mr Hussein, and bin Laden all thought Bush the Younger was a wimp and felt the need to test him. Whoops!

And so he ate their livers with fava beans and a nice Chianti?*

Dean's not going anywhere, Max; at least, not for a while. It's the state pols who determine the chair, not Mary Matalin's (possible future chair of the RNC herself) husband.

*Bonus points for those who get the reference.

Pat,
Undoubtedly. It's worth considering, especially when there are a variety of options that all have pluses and minuses.

I just want to make it clear that our focus needs to be what's best for our nation. Such decisions rest on a variety of considerations, and what AQ thinks can be ONE of those considerations. But as you suggest, it's far more important that we delve into the question of whether or not AQ really is right than that we act based on what they believe.

If we make the proper decisions for our nation, I don't care whether those decisions make AQ happy, sad or indifferent. They call every outcome a victory anyway, and every outcome re-enforces their beliefs.